This question already has an answer here:
There are two types of people: scientists and everyone else.
A scientist is somebody who studies theory and evidence to further their understanding of the world. The key word is evidence. The scientist does not just blindly follow a theory because it is written in some book, they follow it because they have studied the evidence for it. As such, their beliefs are based on that evidence, and one cannot call this scientists belief in science for a religious position.
Then there's everyone else. These people do not know the theory (at least not from a formal, rigorous standpoint), they certainly have never studied the evidence, or been academically trained in the field. Their familiarity with the science comes down to watching youtube videos by Vsauce, at most. They'll often talk about "climate change" and "the big bang" and "the god particle" or whatever else buzzword's going around, but they don't actually understand the rigorous definition of those words nor the proper evidence. They might have heard that evidence exists, but if you ask them on the spot what sort of evidence it is, how it was found, how the experiment can be repeated and tested, and all these standard methods of scientific inquiry, they won't have a clue.
So essentially we have a group of people that have been given a shallow introduction to a certain topic, and have been told that certain things are true, and then they just take that on faith.
How is that any different from religion? Is science, as it is believed in by most normal people (and not actual scientists), just the same as religion, and thus similarly irrational?
For example, do you believe that the Big Bang is true? Okay, if your answer is yes, describe to me a procedure which I can follow in order to obtain evidence to support your claim. Don't google the internet, it has to be coming from you only. You can't do it, can you? Hence, you are akin to a religious believer. You belief is not rational.